Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Jagsir Singh And Ors on 31 October, 2014
Author: Surinder Gupta
Bench: Rajive Bhalla, Surinder Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No.D-15-DBA of 2003 (O&M)
Date of decision : October 31, 2014
State of Punjab
... Appellant
vs.
Jagsir Singh and Ors.
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
Present: Mr. P.P.S. Thethi, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
Mr. Parampreet Singh Brar, Advocate
for the respondents.
Surinder Gupta, J
1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 26.8.2002 passed in Sessions Case No.8 of 30.1.2001 by Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, acquitting the respondents of the charges framed against them vide charge sheet dated 21.3.2002 for offence punishable under Sections 307, 307 read with Sections 34, 427 IPC, 27 and 30 of the Arms Act.
2. On 4.10.2000, SI Joginder Singh, SI/SHO Police Station Maur, District Bathinda on receipt of wireless message from Police Post, Civil Hospital, Bathinda reached there and received ruqa Ex.PJ intimating the admission of Gurtej Singh son of Karnail Singh in Civil Hospital, Bathinda. He took opinion of doctor regarding fitness of injured to make statement vide application Ex.PK, on which the doctor vide endorsement Ex.PK/1 declared him unfit to make statement. He recorded statement of Paramjeet Singh son of Gurtej Singh Ex.PE, English translation of which is as follows :-
"Stated that I am resident of Maur Khurd and an agriculturist by profession. I am the only son of my father and live with my DEEPAK KUMAR 2014.11.13 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Appeal No.D-15-DBA of 2003 (O&M) -2- father. Today, at about 11-1/2 a.m. I along with my friend Veerdevinder Singh son of Darshan Singh, Jat, resident of Jaid and my father Gurtej Singh in our Maruti Car No.PB03G- 0311, which was being driven by my friend Veerdevinder Singh came to Maur Mandi to purchase household goods. I was sitting on front seat on left side and my father was sitting on back seat of the car. When we were going from Bus Stand towards market and were a little behind the school, respondents Rajwant and Jagsir came from opposite direction on Ford Tractor of blue colour without number, which was being driven by Rajwant Singh son of Joginder Singh, Jat, resident of Maur Khurd and Jagsir Singh was sitting on mudguard. Two other persons were sitting on the other mudguard who could be identified if brought before me. When the tractor crossed our car, Rajwant Singh raised Lalkara that our enemies are empty handed and today they have opportunity to take revenge and exhorted Jagsir to shoot them. On hearing their lalkar, we became alert and my father, sitting on backseat bend down a little towards front side. In the meanwhile Jagsir Singh fired a shot with his gun towards our car with intention to kill us. The shot after piercing the back glass hit on the head and left side of back of my father. In the meanwhile our car advanced a little further. I observed that Rajwant Singh stopped the tractor and took the gun from Seera. He fired another shot towards our car, which hit on the back of my father. The other two persons sitting on tractor were raising lalkara that the available occasion be utilized by not sparing occupants of car. I asked Veerdevinder DEEPAK KUMAR 2014.11.13 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Appeal No.D-15-DBA of 2003 (O&M) -3- Singh to accelerate the speed so that we could save our life. We brought my father to the Civil Hospital, Bathinda, where doctor Sahib treated him. The motive behind the occurrence is that we had old enmity. A compromise was got effected by the village Panchayat and parties having taken oath in Gurdwara but respondents have not forgotten the enmity and fired shots with intention to kill us and injuring my father."
3. SI Joginder Singh sent ruqa vide endorsement Ex.PA/1 to the Police Station Maur where upon formal FIR Ex.PE/2 was registered. The doctor gave the parcel containing clothes sealed with the seal bearing letters "NL" and vial containing pellet which were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PL. The maruti car parked in the hospital premises bearing registration No.PB-03G-0311 was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PH. Thereafter he visited the place of occurrence and prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence Ex.PM with correct marginal notes.
4. Respondent Rajwant Singh and Jagsir Singh were produced by Municipal Councilor Nirmal Singh on 11.10.2000 and were arrested. On the disclosure statement of Rajwant Singh Ex.PN, gun and tractor were recovered. The gun was put in a parcel and sealed with the seal bearing letters "JS" and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PO. Accused Bant Singh and Jagtar Singh were also arrested in this case. After completion of the investigation challan was presented in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Talwandi Sabo, who committed the same to the court of Sessions for trial.
5. The accused-respondents were initially charge sheeted for offence punishable under Sections 307 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC DEEPAK KUMAR 2014.11.13 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Appeal No.D-15-DBA of 2003 (O&M) -4- vide charge sheet dated 12.2.2001 which was later on amended and the charges were framed against the respondents as follows :-
Sr.No. Name of the accused charged Charge framed for offence punishable under Section 1 Jagsir Singh 307/427 IPC and 27 Arms Act 2 Rajwant Singh 307/427 IPC and 27/30 Arms Act 3 Jagtar Singh and Bant Singh 307 read with Section 34 IPC
6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses, who can be put in the following category :-
1. Medical Evidence
2. Eye witnesses
3. Investigating Officers
4. Formal witnesses Medical Evidence
7. PW-1 Dr. H.L. Garg, Radiologist had examined Gurtej Singh injured on 9.10.2000 at Civil Hospital, Bathinda and found no bone injury to his skull. An oval shaped shadow was seen in the left occipital region. Dr. Niranjan Lal Garg, E.M.O. Civil Hospital, Bathinda appeared as PW-4. He had conducted medical examination of the injured Gurtej Singh on 4.10.2000 at 1.10 p.m. and found the following injuries on his person :-
"1. A lacerated wound 0.3 x 0.25 cm with inverted margins, contused margin on left occipital area of skull, it was 4.5 cm from midline, 5 cm above the left occipital protuberence. Fresh bleeding was present. X-ray of skull was advised.
2. There were six abrasions reddish in colour. Three on the left back on left scapular region on its lateral aspect and 3 on lateral aspect of left upper arm of 0.3 cm x 0.25 cm each and a lacerated wound on left upper arm 2.5 DEEPAK KUMAR cm below the left axillary fold on posterior aspect. 2014.11.13 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Appeal No.D-15-DBA of 2003 (O&M) -5-
Margin was contused and a pellet was lying in it and removed and handed over to police. Fresh bleeding was present.
3. 20 cm apart from left abrasion on left back there were two abrasions 0.3 cm x 0.25 cm red in colour on right back on right scapular region. Two abrasions were 9 cm apart and lying horizontally."
8. In the opinion of the doctor, injuries No.1 to 3 were caused with fire arm. Injury No.1 was kept under observation while injuries No.2 and 3 were declared as simple. He did not rule out the possibility of the injuries on the person of Gurtej Singh being caused with two different shots. He has opined that pieces of wind screen may be embedded in the injuries in case wind screen intervenes between the shot fired and the injured but in the case of injuries to Gurtej Singh, no piece of glass was found and there were no inverted margins in injuries No.2 and 3 which were abrasions and superficial injuries. The pellet in injury No.2 was lying over the injury in loose position and this injury required no operation to remove the pellet . He did not find any burning, tatooning, scorching, inverted margins or everted margins in injuries No.2 and 3 and did not rule out suffering these injuries with friendly hands. He has described the condition of injury No.1 on the person of Gurtej Singh in the following words :-
"No pellet was visible in injury No.1 to the naked eye. No blood or corresponding holes in the clothes born by the injured was found. Injured was admitted in the Hospital on 4.10.2000 at 1.00 p.m. He was conscious at the time of admission and remained conscious throughout. It is correct that there is a note mentioned purporting to be by Gurtej Singh injured that he does not want to get himself x-rayed on DEEPAK KUMAR 2014.11.13 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Appeal No.D-15-DBA of 2003 (O&M) -6- 7.10.2000 and he will get himself x-rayed on Monday...."
Eye witnesses
9. Complainant Paramjit Singh appeared as PW-5, injured Gurtej Singh appeared as PW-7 and another eye witness namely Veer Dewinder Singh was examined as PW-9.
Investigating Officer
10. SI Joginder Singh who conducted the investigation in this case appeared as PW10. ASI Nirmal Singh of Police Station Maur who partly investigated the case appeared as PW-11.
Formal witnesses
11. Parshotam Dass PW-2 had prepared the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence Ex.PB. HC Amrik Singh PW-3, HC Inderjit Singh PW-8 are the formal witnesses. PW-6 Des Raj, Jr. Assistant, State Transport Commissioner, Chandigarh has proved the ownership of maruti car No.PB-03G-0311 of Gurtej Singh.
12. The incriminating evidence appearing against the respondents was put to them which they denied and pleaded their false implication. Respondent Jagsir Singh stated in his defence as follows :-
"I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated in the above noted case due to the grudge that Gurtej Singh was challaned for the murder of Bikkar Singh, father of me and due to the reason that the complainant party was pressurizing me for a compromise in abduction case of Nirmal Singh."
13. Respondent Rajwant Singh has stated in his defence as follows :-
"I am innocent. I was not on a speaking term with Jagsir Singh my co-accused as he used to mend a common ridge between my fields and that of his fields frequently. Thus, there DEEPAK KUMAR 2014.11.13 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Appeal No.D-15-DBA of 2003 (O&M) -7- had been altercation between me and Jagsir Singh. I have been falsely implicated in this case because my father Joginder Singh appeared as a prosecution witness against Gurtej Singh PW and his brother Baldev Singh in a double murder case and they were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. Gurtej Singh got fabricated false medical report and x-ray report from Civil Hospital, Bathinda with the influence of his brother Baldev Singh, who has big kothi in Bathinda City and is right persons having links with political leaders. My licensed gun was already lying deposited in Police Station Maur in connection with FIR No.14 dated 13.2.2000 u/s 25 Arms Act of P.S. Maur as my gun and revolver are entered in the same licence and revolver along with license was taken into possession in the aforesaid case by the police of P.S. Maur."
14. Respondents Jagtar Singh and Bant Singh have stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of mis-founded suspicion.
15. The respondents examined Balwinder Singh Junior Assistant Office of District Magistrate, Bathinda as DW-1 and Gopal Krishan Record Keeper, Record Room Bathinda as DW-2.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has argued that the trial court has ignored the testimony of the complainant, injured Gurtej Singh and eye witness Veer Dewinder Singh. The injuries were found on the person of Gurtej Singh. He was immediately taken to the Civil Hospital, Bathinda. There was old enmity between the parties which was got compromised by the village Panchayat but still the respondents were nursing a grudge against the complainant and attacked them and caused DEEPAK KUMAR 2014.11.13 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Appeal No.D-15-DBA of 2003 (O&M) -8- injuries with fire arm when they were in the market. There was no reason for the trial court to ignore the testimony of the victim and the eye witnesses. The medical evidence produced on file corroborates the testimony of eye witnesses and the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC is duly proved against the accused.
17. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that it is a case where everything is stage managed. The occurrence took place at Maur which is about 30 kms from Bathinda. There is a Civil Hospital and adjoining Civil Hospital there is a police station at Maur. The place of occurrence, as per the complainant party, was the market but no witness was joined from the market to support the prosecution version. The injured was not taken to the Civil Hospital, Maur. As per the complainant, pellets were fired from the tractor towards the rear-side of the Maruti car. If the respondents had attacked from the rear-side and the complainant had escaped from the spot by speeding away in their car, it was not possible for them to see the respondents. Even otherwise, no pellet was recovered from the car. The empty was also not recovered from the spot. The gun recovered from Rajwant Singh was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. As per report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, dated 10.11.2000, the date on which the last firing was made from this 12 bore DBBL licensed gun of Rajwant Singh could not be ascertained. All this makes the case of the prosecution and the testimony of the injured as well as the complainant and eye witness highly doubtful. The trial court looked into the entire prosecution evidence and rightly reached the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case.
18. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the State-appellant, learned counsel for the respondents and have carefully perused the record with their assistance. DEEPAK KUMAR 2014.11.13 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Appeal No.D-15-DBA of 2003 (O&M) -9-
19. The factors which weighed before the trial court while acquitting the respondents are enumerated as follows :-
i) In natural course, the injured would have been taken to the Civil Hospital, Maur Mandi which was half kilometer from the place of incident and the matter would have been reported to the police as the police station adjoins the hospital.
ii) The farm house of the complainant was at a distance of half a kilometer only and admittedly they have number of licensed weapons. The complainant would have rushed to their farm house and then proceeded towards Civil Hospital, Bathinda as they had to cover distance of 30 kms from Maur Mandi and could anticipate attack on them on the way to Bathinda.
iii) There was no glass piece embedded in the injury of Gurtej Singh despite the opinion of the doctor that if the wind screen is broken by the pellet , the glass piece might got stuck into injuries.
iv) Injuries No.2 and 3 were stated to be superficial in nature.
v) It was not believable that wind screen will protect the grievous injury being caused by two shots from a double barrel gun.
vi) The police did not recover anything from inside the Maruti car and witnesses have no where pointed out any broken piece of glass and pellets lying in the car.
vii) Veer Dewinder Singh who had appeared as PW-9 was appointed in Municipal Corporation when the injured DEEPAK KUMAR 2014.11.13 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Appeal No.D-15-DBA of 2003 (O&M) -10- Gurtej Singh was President of the Municipal Council, Maur, as such, was under his obligation. His presence at the spot was found doubtful.
viii) On 7.10.2000, x-ray examination for injury No.1 was advised but the victim opted to go for x-ray examination on 9.10.2000 as per note on the bed head ticket. This conduct of the victim led the trial court to draw an inference that purpose of the victim was to procure medical evidence in his favour.
ix) Respondent Jagtar Singh and Bant Singh were not named in the FIR and the trial court found their presence at the time of occurrence, in the absence of any test identification parade, doubtful.
x) There is no report of the Forensic Laboratory or of any ballistic expert that double barrel gun recovered from Rajwant Singh was used in the occurrence.
20. Firstly, we look into the motive for the alleged occurrence. Gurtej Singh while appearing as PW-7 has stated that he was involved in the murder of Bikar Singh and Malkeet Singh father and uncle of respondent Jagsir Singh. The respondents had murdered Sukhdev Singh brother of Gurtej Singh in the hospital. Father of Rajwant Singh had appeared as a witness in the murder case of Bikar Singh and Malkeet Singh. He has further admitted that Rajwant Singh was on visiting terms with them and they never tried to harm him. In the case of murder of brother of this witness all the accused were acquitted. Darshan Singh another brother of Gurtej Singh had also got registered a case against respondent Jagsir Singh and others at Police Station Talwandi Sabo regarding fire arm injuries caused by them and the complainant was cited DEEPAK KUMAR 2014.11.13 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Appeal No.D-15-DBA of 2003 (O&M) -11- as one of the witness in that case, in which all the accused were acquitted as compromise took place in Gurdwara. Gurtej Singh and the other accused in the case of kidnapping of Nirmal Singh son of Jaswant Singh were convicted and sentenced. The testimony of complainant Paramjjit Singh PW-1 reflecting the extent of enmity between the parties, is reproduced as follows :-
"..... It is correct that on 17.5.79, Malkiat Singh s/o Gajjan Singh, Bikkar Singh s/o Gurdev Singh r/o V. Maur Khurd, my grand father Karnail Singh and his (sic) Baldev Singh, Gurtej Singh and Gursewak Singh were challaned in that case. It is correct that Baldev Singh my father Gurtej Singh and uncle Gursewak Singh were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. However, my father was acquitted by Hon'ble High Court and Gursewak Singh was also acquitted by Hon'ble High Court. However, conviction of Baldev Singh was maintained and he has already undergone his sentence. Jagsir accused present in court is son of Bikkar Singh. Surjit Singh, Atma Singh and Nachatar Singh brother of above deceased are residing at Maur Khurd. I know Nathu Singh and Madan Singh. Jagrup Singh s/o Bega Singh and his son Jagtar Singh and others caused fire arm injuries at Talwandi Sabo, and case was registered. Again said might be got registered by my uncle Sukhdev Singh. I do not know what was the decision in that case. Those persons are at large and are living in their houses. In November, 1981 Jagrup Singh aforesaid and Atma Singh, Nachattar Singh aforesaid were challaned for causing injury to my grand father Karnail Singh u/s 307 IPC. I do not know if my father Gurdev Singh got said DEEPAK KUMAR 2014.11.13 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Appeal No.D-15-DBA of 2003 (O&M) -12- case registered against Jagrup Singh etc. mentioned above. My uncle Gursewak Singh was murdered on 24.12.81 in Civil Hospital, Bathinda. I do not know if my father Gurtej Singh lodged FIR for that murder against Jagtar Singh s/o Jagarup Sigh, Major Singh s/o Sucha Singh, Harpal Singh s/o Jagrup Singh r/o Bathinda, Gurdev Singh and Surjit Singh s/oDiwan Singh r/o Maur Khurd. I do not know what was the result of trial in that case. I do not know if all accused in that case were acquitted. It is correct that on 1.6.97 myself, my father Gurtej Singh, Jarnail Singh s/o Bhajan Singh, Nathu Singh s/o Pakhar Singh and Nirmal Singh s/o Jaswant Singh r/o Maur Khurd had caused injury to him. It is correct that in that case, we were convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for two years by the Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo. On 4.2.99, my uncle Darshan Singh got registered case u/s 307/148/149 IPC against Nirmal Singh s/o Jaswant Singh, Jagsir Singh s/o Bikkar Singh, Ajit Pal Singh and Lala Singh r/o Maur Khurd and Jaspal Singh r/o Ghuman Kalan for firing at my uncle Gurbhai Sigh, at Talwandi Sabo court premises. I along with Darshan Singh my uncle Gurbhai Singh and my father Gurtej Singh. Again said Gurtej Singh was not a witness in that case but I along with Darshan Singh and Gurbhai Singh my uncle were cited as witnesses in that case. Compromise was got effected by the Panchayat. It is incorrect to suggest that my uncle Darshan Singh, Gurbhai Singh and Jagadev Singh made statements in court that maskmen fired at Gurbhai Singh and Jagdev Singh. I do not know whether their statements were recorded or not. No compromise was given in the court. DEEPAK KUMAR 2014.11.13 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Appeal No.D-15-DBA of 2003 (O&M) -13- Compromise was not reduced into writing. Jagsir Singh accused was also accused in that case. It is correct that we were acquitted in that case on the basis of compromise. It is incorrect that said case was a false case. Nirmal Singh son of Jaswant Singh accused of 307 IPC case was complainant against us for which we have been convicted and sentenced. It is correct that case was registered against me Nathu Sigh s/o Pakhar Singh, Harbpal Singh son of Nachattar Singh, Nirmal Singh s/o Amarjit Singh, Tara Sigh, Jang Singh, Jagpal Singh s/o Sher Singh for causing injuries to Sikandar Singh in his shop at village Bhai ni Bhaga. The said case is still pending the court at Mansa."
21. The above testimony of Paramjit Singh shows an old enmity between complainant and respondent No.1 subsisting for the last 20 years. No doubt, enmity is a factor which weighs against the complainant as well as respondents equally. The evidence on file requires minute scrutiny to find as to whether the testimony of prosecution witnesses is worth reliance to prove the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution.
22. On appraisal of prosecution evidence we find that the matter was reported to the police, vide statement of the complainant Paramjit Singh Ex.PE wherein he has named respondent Rajwant Singh and Jagsir Singh. As per complainant, Rajwant Singh was driving a tractor while Jagsir Singh was sitting on the mudguard. He had further stated that two other persons were sitting on the other mudguard and could be identified if produced before him. SI Joginder Singh had arrested accused Bant Singh and Jagtar Singh on 13.10.2010. The police has recorded statement of Veer Dewinder Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C (Ex.DB) on the day of occurrence. He has also not named or identified the other persons sitting DEEPAK KUMAR 2014.11.13 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Appeal No.D-15-DBA of 2003 (O&M) -14- on the mudguard of the tractor. He has only named accused Rajwant Singh and Jagsir Singh. It was in the statement of Gurtej Singh recorded on 10.10.2000 that the name of Bant Singh and Jagtar Singh croped up. The parties have long standing enmity and litigation. Jagtar Singh and Bant Singh are also residents of Maur Mandi where the complainant and other respondents are residing. It is highly unbelievable that the complainant and Veer Dewinder Singh could not identify Jagtar Singh and Bant Singh but they were identified by the injured. As per the complainant Paramjit Singh they were going in their car near school of Maur Mandi when they came across the tractor being driven by Rajwant Singh on which Jagsir Singh was sitting with a gun. It was Jagsir Singh who raised 'lalkara' that the complainant who were empty handed should not be spared and then fired a shot towards them. Rajwant Singh stopped the tractor and fired another shot. The complainant accelerated the speed of their car and rushed towards Civil Hospital, Bathinda. The only role attributed to Jagtar Singh and Bant Singh was that they were raising 'lalkara'. Gurtej Singh has not attributed even 'lalkara' specifically to Jagtar Singh and Bant Singh. Veer Dewinder Singh is silent about any 'lalkara' being raised by Jagtar Singh and Bant Singh.
23. From the above discussion of prosecution evidence, we find that the complainant had made a vain attempt to make out the presence of Jagtar Singh and Bant Singh at the spot. The permission to leave to appeal was declined vide order dated 19.12.2002 qua respondents No.3 and 4.
24. On narrowing down the case of the prosecution qua respondents No.1 and 2, we proceed to appraise the prosecution evidence qua them.
DEEPAK KUMAR 2014.11.13 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Appeal No.D-15-DBA of 2003 (O&M) -15-
25. First point which arises for consideration is as to whether the respondents had fired at the Maruti car of the complainant in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. The evidence on record does not corroborate the oral testimony of Paramjit Singh PW-5, Gurtej Singh PW-7 and Veer Dewinder Singh PW-9. Paramjit Singh while appearing as PW-5 has stated that pellets of the gun shot struck the wind screen, roof of the car and head rest of the driver seat. The second fire shot smashed the whole of the rear screen which broke into pieces and fell in the car. He further admitted that the police had not taken any broken glass or pellets in possession from the car. Despite search the police could not find any piece of broken glass or pellet inside the car. He has further stated that the car seat also got blood stained due to the injuries received by his father but the police had not taken into possession the blood stained seat of the car.
26. Gurtej Singh PW-7 has stated that with the first shot fired by the respondent Jagsir Singh half of the rear screen of the car was broken from left side and the entire glass of rear screen got smashed with the second shot. The crack also came in the front wind screen. Some portion of the rear wind screen had fallen inside the car. The pellets struck on the head rest of the front left seat of the car and portion of the rear windscreen had fallen inside the car. Veer Dewinder Singh PW-9 has also stated that the front wind screen had received certain marks on it but no hole was created by the pellet which hit the front wind screen. The pellet had also hit the roof of the car.
27. The testimony of the above witnesses show that number of pellets entered the car and a pellet hit the head rest of the front seat. After hitting the head rest of the front seat, the pellets would have either got embedded in the head rest or fallen in the car. In the same manner when the rear wind screen got smashed, after being hit by the pellet, it must have DEEPAK KUMAR 2014.11.13 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Appeal No.D-15-DBA of 2003 (O&M) -16- fallen inside the car along with pellets. There were multiple abrasion injuries on the person of Gurtej Singh, which as per the doctor were caused by fire arm injuries. The police searched the car but neither found any pieces of smashed glass inside the car or any pellet or bullet fired from 12 bore gun. No pellet was found in the head rest of the front seat and the police also did not find any mark of bullet/pellet on the head rest of front seat of the car. The condition of the car taken into possession finds mention in recovery memo Ex.PH which read as follows :
"Before the below noted witnesses, on demarcation of Veerdavinder Singh son of Darshan Singh, Jat, resident of Jaid, a Maruti Car bearing No.PB-03-G-0311 colour red, back screen of which was broken due to shot of fire by accused, was taken into Police possession as a proof, from Civil Hospital. Memo was prepared. On memo signatures of witnesses were obtained."
28. The above recovery memo does not speak of any pellet marks on the body of the car or on the front wind screen. Though, this fact is mentioned in the recovery memo that back screen of the car had broken due to the shot fired by the accused, however, while appearing as PW-10 SI Joginder Singh Investigating Officer has stated :-
"..... I had examined the car from inside and outside and damages noted from the car was noted in recovery memo Ex.PH. No broken glass piece was found inside the car nor pellet marking nor any blood stain were found from inside the car. One 12 bore cartridge contains 4 wads and 100's pellets. At that time on search no wad or pellet found in the car. No photograph of the car was obtained. Back wind screen was not there in the car. It is incorrect to suggest that DEEPAK KUMAR 2014.11.13 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Appeal No.D-15-DBA of 2003 (O&M) -17- complainant party had got removed the back wind screen from mechanic. There was no damage in the front of the wind screen. No mechanical test of the car was got done."
29. The above statement of SI Joginder Singh belie the testimony of the complainant, injured Gurtej Singh and Veer Dewinder Singh. Rear wind screen of the car was not there at the time it was taken into possession. The Investigating Officer did not find the pieces of glass in the car or even at the spot. There was no reason for him to reach the conclusion that the rear wind screen of the car was smashed due to gun shots. The fact that the police did not find any damage to the interior or exterior of the car except the missing rear wind screen belies the statement of the complainant Paramjit Singh PW-5, injured Gurtej Singh PW-7 and Veer Dewinder Singh PW-9 that the body of the car including front wind screen got pellet marks.
30. The above major and material discrepancies creates a serious doubt about the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the occurrence. The manner, in which the complainant Paramjit Singh, injured Gurtej Singh and Veer Dewinder Singh conducted themselves also creates serious doubt about their version regarding the occurrence. Admittedly, the police station and the civil hospital at Maur was near the place of occurrence but the injured Gurtej Singh was taken to the Civil Hospital, Bathinda situated at a distance of about 30 kms. Gurtej Singh has stated that he has become unconscious after receiving gun shot injury. It not only looks suspicious but also difficult to rely that the complainant and Veer Dewinder Singh opted to take the injured to Civil Hospital, Bathinda instead of rushing to the nearby hospital particularly when he after receiving gun shot injury had become unconscious. In natural course, the prudent behaviour of the complainant party would have been to carry the injured to DEEPAK KUMAR 2014.11.13 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Appeal No.D-15-DBA of 2003 (O&M) -18- the nearby hospital and in case they had reached the nearby Civil Hospital, Maur, the matter would have been reported to the police as the police station that adjoins the civil hospital. The occurrence had taken place at about 11.00 a.m. and the medical examination of Gurtej Singh was conducted at 1.10 p.m. i.e. after a gap of more than two hours but the injuries No.1 and 2 were having fresh bleeding and it is highly improbable that after a lapse of more than two hours a wound 0.3 cm x 0.25 cm shall have fresh bleeding. The bleeding may be possible when the wound is cleaned or probed but Dr. Niranjan Lal Garg has no where stated that this fresh bleeding started after probing or cleaning of the wound. He has stated that probable duration of the injuries may be half an hour before examination. This creates doubt about the timing of the occurrence and receiving of the injury by Gurtej Singh.
31. The location of the place of occurrence was admittedly in the market but the prosecution has not produced any independent witness to depose regarding the occurrence. In normal circumstances the testimony of the injured and even relative witnesses can be relied upon but in view of the serious doubts that have arisen about the entire version put forth by the prosecution, lack of independent corroboration is one of the serious factor which creates further doubt about the prosecution version. Gurtej Singh PW-7 has stated that the respondent Rajwant Singh was on visiting terms with them on the occasion of marriages. They have never tried to harm him. No motive has been attributed against Rajwant Singh for firing at Gurtej Singh, his son and Veer Dewinder Singh. The above witnesses are in unison while stating that first shot was fired from 8/10 karams and second shot was fired from a distance of 10/12 karams and both the vehicles were moving during that period in opposite direction. When the first shot was fired there was a distance of 45-55 feet between both the DEEPAK KUMAR 2014.11.13 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Appeal No.D-15-DBA of 2003 (O&M) -19- vehicles i.e. car of the complainant and the tractor of respondents No.1 and
2. Veer Dewinder Singh was the driver of the Maruti car in which the complainant and his father were sitting. Veer Dewinder Singh has stated that on the shot being fired at them, he tried to speed up the vehicle, but could not do so due to the rush in the market. This depicts that the entire attention of the complainant and other witnesses was towards the road which was crowded and they did not have the chance to look towards respondents No.1 and 2, thus creating suspicion about their witnessing Rajwant Singh raising lalkara, taking the gun from Jagsir Singh to hit Gurtej Singh after firing of first shot. The distance in between them would not have made it feasible to hear the lalkara and carefully watch the action taking place at the back instead of taking care of crowded road on the front side.
32. All the facts discussed above create serious doubt which the prosecution has failed to dispel. This coupled with the fact that no pellet or pieces of broken glass were recovered from the spot or from car and lack of definite evidence that the gun shot was fired from the licensed gun of Rajwant Singh are the other circumstances that discredit the prosecution version.
33. As a sequel of above discussion, we find no merits in this appeal and dismiss the same.
(Rajive Bhalla) (Surinder Gupta)
Judge Judge
October 31, 2014
deepak
DEEPAK KUMAR
2014.11.13 10:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document